The Reverse Bucket List
DESCRIPTION:
Reverse Bucket List: Finding contentment, practising renunciation and discovering happiness. Resignation in the face of structural injustice, disguised as advice from happiness research.
Reverse Bucket List & Happiness: The Psychology of Resignation – How Happiness Research in the Service of Neoliberal Ideology of Renunciation Devalues Past Experiences
A critical analysis of Harvard's Reverse Bucket List: Between earthly misery and consumerism – why this method reveals more about power relations than true happiness
We live in a time of extreme contradictions. While a small elite revels in unimaginable luxury, the majority is increasingly being preached modesty. In this context, the "reverse bucket list" appears—a method developed by Arthur C Brooks at Harvard University. Happiness research promises that those who reverse their bucket list and cross off wishes instead of pursuing them will find true happiness. But on closer inspection, the resigned nature of this psychology, which is suspiciously reminiscent of old techniques of domination, becomes apparent. The call to write a reverse bucket list is by no means neutral.
What it's about:
· socio-political dimensions behind seemingly harmless self-help methods,
· the long tradition of ideologies of renunciation,
· the religious concept of the earthly vale of tears with the consolation of eternal bliss, and
· modern neoliberal self-optimisation.
These ideologies have always served to legitimise existing power structures and stifle the pursuit of more equitable conditions.
What is a bucket list, and why is its opposite not a solution?
A bucket list is a list of things, experiences and goals that people want to achieve before they die. Popularised by media outlets such as Psychology Today, it is an expression of a consumer-oriented society that equates happiness with ticking off consumer experiences. The traditional bucket list promises: achieve enough goals, buy enough things, and you will be happy. This is, of course, an illusion that keeps capitalism going and traps people in endless pursuit.
The problem is that when we achieve a goal, our brain briefly releases dopamine – but the biochemical effect quickly wears off. Research at Harvard University shows that people get used to achievements, and their happiness levels return to where they started. But instead of using these findings to ask structural questions – why are people dissatisfied even though they should be materially secure? – Positive psychology has developed the reverse bucket list as a supposed solution.
The reverse bucket list approach says: write down your wishes and then consciously cross them off. Accept that you will not have/achieve these things – for the sake of your well-being. This sounds wise at first, but on closer inspection, it reveals its resigned core. Who benefits when people stop striving for a better life? Indeed, not the people themselves, but those who benefit from the status quo.
What are the historical roots of the reverse bucket list ideology?
The legitimist call for renunciation runs through the entire history of exploitative societies. In the Middle Ages, the Church preached the concept of the earthly vale of tears: life is full of suffering and deprivation, but those who endure patiently and renounce worldly goods will be rewarded with eternal bliss in the hereafter. This ideology was indispensable for legitimising breathtaking social inequality. Serfs were expected to accept their misery while the nobility and clergy lived in abundance.
The parallels to the modern "reverse bucket list" are striking. Here, too, renunciation is sold as a virtue, and material desires are portrayed as a source of unhappiness. The main difference is that instead of eternal bliss, psychological well-being is now promised through neural reprogramming and dopamine management. A Harvard University professor explains scientifically why we become happier when we give up our legitimate claims. However, the function remains the same – people should learn to be content with less.
Arthur C. Brooks may be a successful man who had ticked off everything on his bucket list by the age of fifty and was still unhappy. But the majority of people don't even achieve basic milestones: secure employment, affordable housing, access to education and culture. Preaching to them that they should write down a list of things and tick them off is not wisdom – it is cynicism. It is the continuation of an old tradition: the privileged explaining to the disadvantaged why renunciation is the path to "happiness" for them.
How does the reverse bucket list serve neoliberal ideology?
Positive psychology, as taught at elite institutions such as Harvard, is not a neutral scientific field. It is an ideological tool that systematically shifts social problems to the individual level. Instead of identifying the structural causes of dissatisfaction – such as precarious working conditions, exploitation, and social injustice – people are encouraged to change their inner attitude. This is the essence of hustle culture: everyone is the architect of their own fortune, and those who are unhappy have only themselves to blame or have failed to apply the proper psychological techniques.
The reverse bucket list is part of this individualisation strategy. It suggests that finding satisfaction is a question of personal attitude, not material circumstances. People should learn not to link their self-esteem to external goals, which, at first, sounds reasonable. But the unspoken message is: accept your situation, don't ask uncomfortable questions about distributive justice, instead optimise your neural pathways.
This is particularly insidious because it is packaged as self-empowerment. People believe they are acting autonomously when they write their reverse bucket list. In reality, they are merely internalising the constraints of an increasingly unjust society. Writing this list becomes an exercise in resignation. What psychology calls "psychological flexibility" is, in reality, uncomplaining adaptation to injustice. What is sold as a path to success is the surrender of the claim to a successful life.
Who really benefits when people empty their reverse bucket?
The crucial question is: Cui bono? Who benefits when workers stop striving for higher wages? When do people view their legitimate needs for housing, healthcare and cultural participation as mere desires to be overcome on the path to true happiness? The answer is obvious: those who profit from the existing system. When pressure from below eases, those in power no longer need to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth.
The reverse bucket list is a tool for pacification. It channels justified frustration about social injustices into individual self-optimisation projects. Instead of fighting collectively for better working conditions or affordable housing, people are supposed to cross off their wishes in silent meditation. The method promises that renunciation will make you happier, while inequality grows and a small elite accumulates more and more wealth.
It becomes particularly cynical when privileged Harvard professors explain to the working population that happiness and contentment are independent of material circumstances. They themselves enjoy highly paid jobs, social prestige and financial security. Yet they preach that "happiness and well-being" come from within, not from outside. This is the perfect ideology for a society that no longer believes it can provide a good life for all people, so it declares renunciation of entitlements a virtue.
Why is emphasising what has already been experienced problematic?
A central argument of the reverse bucket list is that you should be content with what you have rather than constantly striving for something new. At first glance, this sounds like healthy gratitude. But on closer inspection, the logic of resignation becomes apparent here too. Because the question is: what if what you have already experienced was insufficient? What if someone has already experienced what it's like to have to choose between rent, heating and food? What is it like to grow up without access to education or medical care?
Emphasising what you have already experienced only works for those who already have and have experienced enough – enough security, enough dignity, enough participation. For them, it may indeed be liberating to realise that consuming even more does not make them any happier. But for people whose basic needs remain unmet, such rhetoric is an imposition. They are asked to be grateful for what they have, rather than fight for more.
This is the classic function of ideologies of renunciation: they legitimise inequality by persuading the disadvantaged that they should be content with their situation. The concept of gratitude is exploited to generate political passivity. Instead of asking why some people are allowed to experience so much more than others, everyone is supposed to learn to be satisfied with what they are given.
Is the reverse bucket list really liberation or disguised resignation?
Proponents always emphasise that it is not about resignation, but about conscious letting go. But on closer inspection, this distinction is untenable. What is resignation other than accepting that specific goals are unattainable? When a person renounces their desire for adequate housing, fulfilling work or cultural participation – not by choice, but because society denies them these things – that is textbook resignation.
Positive psychology calls this "psychological flexibility" – the ability to adapt to circumstances without losing one's inner balance. But from a socially critical perspective, this is nothing more than cultivating adaptability to unjust conditions. People are trained to endure the unacceptable rather than rebel against it. This is not a strength, but the internalisation of powerlessness.
True liberation would mean fighting the causes of dissatisfaction, not managing the symptoms. It would mean fighting together for a society in which all people can satisfy their needs. The reverse bucket list does the opposite: it trains people in renunciation and adaptation. This is not a path to authentic purpose, but to the acceptance of meaninglessness.
What role does Harvard University play in producing this ideology?
It is no coincidence that the "reverse bucket list" comes from Harvard. Elite universities are not neutral places of knowledge production, but institutions for securing power. They train future leaders and, at the same time, produce ideologies that justify existing power relations. Harvard, with its billion-dollar endowment, is deeply embedded in the capitalist system.
In this context, happiness research is a strategic project. It provides seemingly scientific reasons why people should not be unhappy despite growing inequality – as long as they have the right attitude. Concepts such as the reverse bucket list are disseminated through bestsellers, TED Talks and the media. The message is always the same: the problem is not with the system, but with you. You need to change, not the world.
This is ideology production in the service of the powerful. While economists at the same universities develop theories that justify extreme inequality, psychologists develop techniques to teach people to endure it. Happiness research perfectly complements the exploitative economy: it ensures that the exploited see their exploitation as an opportunity for personal development.
Are there alternatives to the resigned bucket list theory?
A truly liberating psychology would not start with the individual, but with social conditions. It would not teach people to suppress their desires, but encourage them to fight together to fulfil them. Such a critical psychology of happiness exists and has a long tradition – from Wilhelm Reich to Erich Fromm to modern representatives such as David Smail.
Their approaches recognise that genuine well-being requires material security, social connectedness and democratic participation. They do not call for individual renunciation, but collective organisation. Instead of a crossed-off list of things, we need a common agenda: fair wages, affordable housing, access to education and culture, climate justice, democratic control over the economy and politics.
Of course, there are situations in which individual adaptation is necessary. Not every wish can be fulfilled, not every goal is realistic. But the difference lies in attitude: do I accept my situation as unchangeable and work on my attitude? Or do I recognise what can be changed structurally and commit myself to it? The former is resignation, the latter is emancipation. The reverse bucket list trains the former and calls it wisdom.
Can the reverse bucket list be used sensibly at all?
In fairness, not every aspect should be rejected entirely. In individual situations, it can make perfect sense to question unrealistic or destructive desires. Those who want to free themselves from consumerist pressures or obsessive demands for perfection may benefit from such reflections. The problem lies not in the individual application but in the method's social function and ideological embedding.
It becomes critical when the method is presented as a universal solution, when it psychologises structural problems, and when it encourages people to resign themselves rather than resist. And this is precisely what happens in the practice of positive psychology. The reverse bucket list is not offered as a modest tool, but as a scientifically validated path to "happiness" – as an alternative to the supposedly failed pursuit of improving living conditions.
An enlightened, critical application would always have to ask: Why can't I fulfil this wish? Is it because of me or because of circumstances? Is renunciation really the path to happiness or an escape from uncomfortable truths? Whose social interests are served when I reduce my demands? As long as these questions are not asked, the method remains an instrument of conformity, not liberation – a modern variant of the earthly vale of tears.
Conclusion: From the vale of tears to neoliberal self-optimisation
When viewed critically, the reverse bucket list reveals its function as an instrument of conformity. It is part of a long tradition of ideologies of renunciation – from the religious concept of the earthly vale of tears with the consolation of eternal bliss to the modern culture of performance, promising psychological well-being through dopamine management. These ideologies have always served to legitimise existing power relations and stifle the pursuit of more equitable conditions.
Harvard University's happiness research systematically individualises social problems. Instead of combating the causes of dissatisfaction, people are supposed to learn to view their legitimate needs as attachments. This is not wisdom, but resignation in scientific garb. It is the continuation of an old technique of domination: the privileged explain to the disadvantaged why renunciation is the path to individual happiness – while they themselves live in abundance.
A truly emancipatory psychology would take a different approach. It would not teach people to give up their desires, but encourage them to fight together for a society in which these desires can be fulfilled. True well-being does not come from neural reprogramming, but from material security, social connectedness and democratic participation. The task is not to adapt to unjust conditions, but to change them. Anything else is just another variation on the old message: endure your vale of tears, and your reward will come later. In the past, it was in the afterlife; today, it is in supposed inner peace.
What you should know about the reverse bucket list
• The traditional bucket list is an expression of a consumer-oriented society; the reverse bucket list is its resigned flip side – both individualise structural problems.
• The method has historical roots in ideologies of renunciation: from the earthly vale of tears with the consolation of eternal bliss to modern neoliberal self-optimisation.
• Arthur C. Brooks developed the method at Harvard University, an elite institution that has traditionally produced ideologies to secure power.
• The promise of happiness through renunciation primarily serves those in power: it reduces pressure for fairer distribution and legitimises existing inequality.
• Emphasising what has already been experienced only works for the privileged; for people with unmet basic needs, this rhetoric is an imposition.
• The difference between resignation and conscious letting go is untenable – renunciation under social pressure remains resignation, even if it is called psychological flexibility.
• Positive psychology systematically shifts social problems to the individual level – this is essential for maintaining the culture of performance.
• Instead of dopamine management, people need material security, social connectedness and democratic participation for genuine well-being and satisfaction.
• A genuine alternative would not preach individual renunciation, but encourage structural change.
• Writing a list of desired things and crossing them off trains people to adapt to unjust conditions, not to free themselves from them.
• Happiness research promises inner peace through renunciation – a modern variant of the old consolation that has always served to legitimise exploitative societies.
• True liberation does not mean adapting to unjust conditions and defining one's self-esteem independently of milestones, but rather working together to change those conditions.
RELATED ARTICLES:
Self-perception: identity and mirror images
Carl Gustav Jung's Analytical Psychology of Individuation in Midlife
Self-deception, its consequences and how to recognise self-deception